The Team That Wasnt Answer 2 [PDF]

Citation preview

The Team That Wasn't Introduction One of the basic issues that human resource managers have to deal with is team effectiveness. Where team effectiveness may be defined as the process by which a group is able to meet their output targets or even exceed them, a group's decision making processes enhances their abilities and a group's team members feel satisfied with their group. The latter three traits are imperative for any team to function well within the workplace. However, the company under consideration seems to be lacking almost all the latter traits as they have failed in achieving cohesion between group members. The case study involves top-level managers of various divisions within a glass manufacturing company known as Fire Art. (Wetlaufer, 1994) The essay seeks to examine the group dynamics that have led to this team's ineffectiveness. Problem statement Fire art's team is in a human resource crisis because; first, the work performance of the group is below expectation because they have not achieved their sole mission. The second issue that is seriously wrong with Fire art's groups is poor quality of work life for the respective team members as most of them are not satisfied with their own performances. Background/synopsis Experts have suggested various channels that facilitate effective decision-making and good teamwork. One such expert was Kellet (1993); he found that successful teams have certain characteristics that ascertain team effectiveness. First, they always make decisions within climates that facilitate consensus building. In this regard, all team members feel equally important and are not threatened by any other member of the team. Upon investigating the Fire art team, one can see that this environment is lacking. Some members such as Randy (director of the sales and marketing division) intimidate introvert colleagues such as Ray (a top-level manager in the manufacturing division). The Fire art scenario lacks active engagement from all members of the team. The second aspect that Kellet (1993) observed was effective teams often understand their goals and objectives. These goals are also part of the team's role as they should participate in goal setting. When this statement is applied to Fire art's team members, it is clear that they missed that out. There team leader; Eric seems to be the only who decided on team goals and then imposed them on his colleagues. If the team members had participated in goal setting, then perhaps the situation would carry less time constraints upon them and would create a sense of ownership by the team members. In this case, Eric decided that the overall goal of the group was to restructure Fire Art yet he did not engage the rest in determining this. The third aspect essential in effective team work is having an attitude that prepares one to embrace change. The team members at Fire art are ready for change in the organization's process but they are just not ready to change their way of doing things. Randy is one of the group members with the least propensity to change his ways. However, Eric also needs to change the way he handles this team because Fire Art requires a different approach to his former company's ways. Also, Maureen and Ray need to realize that they have to be assertive otherwise, Randy will keep undermining their suggestions and contributions. (Griffin, 1994)



Effective teams ought to have a shared concern for achieving success in their assigned tasks. Again, the fire art lacks this trait because most of them re concerned about the success of their own portfolios rather than the overall success of the team. This could be seen by the ay Maureen tried defending her division and her work over the years. Also, Ray depicted this lack of shared concern by focusing on his line of work alone and Randy did it too by focusing on marketing alone. It seems the only one who was very keen on success of the overall group was the team leader alone. (Griffin, 1994) Effect teams should constantly evaluate their performance and avoid the group think phenomenon. With regard to the former aspect, Fire Art's team members have not conducted even one evaluation of their performance as their approach to their tasks is haphazard. They seem to be focused on the overall outcome alone and not on the processes of achieving this. Had, the team engaged in performance evaluation, then they would have been more effective. The second issue is about avoiding group think. This is a trait that is very common in the Fine Art group and could be the reason behind their problems. For instance, when Eric was trying to tell Randy about his group domination, Randy decide to walk out and the rest of the team members slowly followed. In addition, when the group had diverging ideas about how to restructure the company, one of them excused herself from the meeting and the rest followed thereafter. Furthermore when Randy interrupted the group's proceedings by suggesting his own views, the rest of the team stopped pursuing their train of thought and instead opted to follow Randy's. There is a serious problem with the way this group makes decisions. They should not fear exposing each others' diverging ideas, otherwise this undermines the very purpose of establishing the group. If the views of one individual keep taking precedence, then the overall effectiveness of the group is undermined. Environmental issues that led to Fire Art's business transition Fire Art's business transition process was prompted by the both internal and external factors within the company. A PEST analysis of Fire Arts' business environment reveals the following. Politically, the business environment in Indiana began favoring greater competition within the private sector. Economically, the companies competitors' began entering into their territory. For instance, instead of just using mass production, Fire Art's key competitors could now penetrate into the units markets which had been Fire Art's forte. Socially, the company's consumers were seasonal, they usually obtained glassware during the spring when there were sorority meetings in schools or during the football season when they needed beer mugs. These fluctuations meant that Fire Art would have some dry spells. Also, the company's designs may not have been in line with current trends in the glass consuming industry. Technologically, Fire art was promoted to change their business strategy owing to the fact that technology enabled their mass-producing competitors to produce glassware in smaller quantities yet this had been Fire Art's domain from the start. (Wetlaufer, 1994) Some of the internal structures that could have promoted the change in business strategy can be highlighted through the 4ps. Fire art needed to repackage their product offering. This meant more input into their design phase. Also, the company's distribution channels were not effective enough to cope with consumer needs as they were not speedy (the latter was highlighted by Carl). Additionally, its promotional strategy was out of tune with the way the business environment because the company needed to offer special packages such discounts to its clientele. Pricing was also an issue as suggested by the director of sale and marketing. He claimed that they needed to look for a way of cutting their throughput and raw materials in order to compete on the basis of price. His suggestions implied that the company was underperforming in this realm. (Wetlaufer, 1994)



Why the delegated assignment to middle management seems to be in trouble and why the new model of collaboration is not working The delegated assignment from senior management is not working owing to the fact that the group has failed to reach a consumes on the way forward. Their overall purpose was to restructure Fire art in order to make the company more effective in its business environment. However, all the meetings the group has participated in have not led to substantial outcomes as no specific path has been sort out. Besides this, the assignment is in trouble because the team has some internal problems as well. Some team members such as Randy have problems fitting into their role as team members and this is slowing down the decision making process. To add insult to injury, the assignment is also in trouble because there seems to too much tension between the respective members of the team and this is impeding their progress. (Griffin, 1994) This model does not seem effective owing to the fact that the respective team has not internalized its team mission. Besides this, they are also having problems in achievement of goals. Most of the team members do no feel empowered and there is lack of honest communication between them. Lastly, the team is not governed by positive norms and roles. Skills that Randy and Eric need to develop Randy was fond of operating as a leader within the organization. However, he needs to change this frame of mind because he is now working with a team. Randy needs to develop attitudinal skills towards teamwork. He also needs to improve his decision making process because he is fond of coming up with solutions on his own. He needs to work on his communication skills because he undermines his colleagues by his arrogant remarks. Randy should also embrace positive team norms because he seems to lack an understanding of what it means to work with others. He overreacts when corrected and does not bother listening to others. These are all issues that he should change. (Hoevemeyer, 1993) Eric on the other hand also has a huge task ahead of him. He needs to redefine team tasks more clearly to his subordinates by learning team organizational skills. Eric ought to study the organizational culture and realign it with team norms. He also needs to develop motivational skill in order to boost the morale of the team members. Besides this, is necessary for him to sharpen his conflict resolution skills as he approached Randy in a tactless manner during the last meeting with the group. He needs to improve his communication skills too because these will assist in clarifying tasks and understanding team members. It is necessary for Eric to develop good power distribution skills because he needs to make his presence felt as a leader of the group. This can be done by ceasing control of the groups' interactions. (Hoevemeyer, 1993) Differences between team and groups Teams are different from groups because the latter are unified by one purpose and feel a sense of ownership towards their organization. Teams usually require cohesiveness and coordination in order to achieve their objective while groups on the other hand may place more emphasis on specific tasks at hand. In this case, Eric is leading a team. The team is made up of people with unified goal of restructuring the company.



Comparison of the decision making strategies at Fire art with other methods One of the worst decision making strategies is when a team leader makes a decision privately and merely informs the rest of team members about it. Fire Art did employ this method during the goal setting stage. It a poor approach because it is the least participatory approach. The second model of decision making is when a team leader obtains decisions from various members of the team and then chooses to make his or her own independent decision. This methodology does not apply to Fire art because no overall consensus was reached by Eric at the end of their discussion with the team. Another strategy is through consensus decision-making where all members give their input and then agree on the final decisions. Such a model is the best way forward, however, this did not apply to Fire art owing to the fact their views keep diverging. Lastly decision making can be done through consensus with fallback where if the team fails to reach an agreement then they can all decide to let the team leader make their decisions for them. Such a method is in sharp contrast to Fire arts' approach because the team members have not accepted this (Griffin, 1994) Recommendation/ Plan of action and advice to Eric Eric need to address the root causes of the problems that the tem is currently undergoing. First of all, he needs to start with goal clarification. This should involve all team embers. Thereafter, he needs to assign specific roles to the team members and set standards for evaluating these roles. Again, the process should be based on consensus. Afterwards, he needs to conduct a test through the West's climate for Innovation questionnaire or though Stringer's Motivation Climate questionnaire. This will help him identify the problems team embers have and also his problems. The results of the questionnaire should act as a guide for changing his style. Thereafter, he needs to suggest a fallback strategy of decision making where the final decisions should rest on him if there is failure to reach consensus. Again, all team members should accept that strategy. The last aspect he needs to work on is coordination especially with regard to uncooperative members like Randy. He should first communicate to Randy in private about the matter. If this does not work, then Randy should be given specific tasks to deal with away from the group. (Robbins, 1993) Reference Wetlaufer, S. (1994): The team that wasn't; Harvard Business Review, November 1994 Kellett, S. (1993): Effective teams at work; Journal of Management Development; 6, 1, 7-11 Robbins, S. (1993): Organizational Behavior: Controversies, Concepts and Applications; Prentice-Hall Hoevemeyer, V. (1993): How effective is your team? Journal of Training & Development; 47, 9, 71 Griffin, T. (1994): five universal keys to effective teamwork; International Conference on Work Teams Conference, 86-89